• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

Help with increasing compression ratio.

  • Thread starter Thread starter monkeyman08880
  • Start date Start date Nov 11, 2004
M

monkeyman08880

New Member
Sep 25, 2004
54
0
0
Nov 11, 2004
#1
  • Nov 11, 2004
  • #1
I want to upgrade my cam to a performer rpm. But that cam needs at least a 9.5:1 comp ratio. I have a 68 coupe with a 289. I know that it is 8.7:1 stock, and its been bored out .030. I need some suggestions for increasing my ratio (the cheapest possibilities please - fairly small budget).
 
N

nds03

New Member
Jul 21, 2004
166
0
0
Nov 11, 2004
#2
  • Nov 11, 2004
  • #2
use thinner head gaskets. if thats not enough, you can get flat top piston, or you can mill the heads
 
M

monkeyman08880

New Member
Sep 25, 2004
54
0
0
Nov 11, 2004
#3
  • Nov 11, 2004
  • #3
So i could port my heads or get new pistons. Could anybody recommend some pistons to get that would increase my ratio (links, please).
 
6

'69Stang

Founding Member
Sep 28, 1999
1,130
2
38
Metro Detroit
Nov 12, 2004
#4
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #4
To effectively raise your compression ratio you only have a couple of real options. I am assuming that you don't want to rebuild your engine. If you are going to do that then you can get any compression ratio you want. Assuming that you aren't rebuilding the engine the only practical thing to do would be to reduce the size of the combustion chamber in your cylinder heads to get the compression ratio up. Essentially, you will have to CC the current cylinder heads to see what the volume per chamber is and then figure out what decrease you need in the chambers to achieve the compression ratio that you want. This is done by milling the heads and by where your cylinder heads machinist places the seat of the valve. By placing placing the seat of the valve shallower then the valve is a little deeper into the combustion chamber and thereby effectively reduces the size of the chamber. These two procedures should help you to achieve your desired compression ratio.

What cylinder heads do you currently have? You may want to consider going as close to 10:1 compression ratio as possible for better performance. remember, a cam like the RPM will work better with a performance set of heads, don't put in a hot cam like that and then choke it off with a stock set of heads. You'll just end up tearing the heads off again.
 
M

monkeyman08880

New Member
Sep 25, 2004
54
0
0
Nov 12, 2004
#5
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #5
heads

Ill tell you everything ive got. A performer rpm intake, performer rpm heads w/60cc chambers and 1.9 inch intake valves. A set of tri-y headers, and flowmaster 40's dual exhaust. Im currently running the performer plus cam, but it doesnt match that well with the rpm series. So i wanted to get the matching cam for the heads and intake. But i needed at least a 9.5:1 comp ratio. My engine has been bored over .030, and i never took the time to check the comp ratio when it was all together. Now that its apart i cant tell what the ratio is. Im not very knowledgable about ratio's so im not sure if i already had a high enough ratio with these previously mentioned parts and bore. So basically i want to kno whether i can go ahead and put in the cam or i whether i need to increase the ratio in order to properly run the engine, without burning it up.
 

Stang_1973

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2001
565
9
38
San Antonio, Tx.
Nov 12, 2004
#6
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #6
Usually with these more agressive cams, they feed off the higher compression. If the maufacturer recommends that Compression it would be wise to follow the advice. If the compression isnt enough for the cam then the engine will not perform as well. I think it would be best to have the advised compression when running a cam that requires it.

Since you have every thing torn apart, you can get some flattop pistons installed to bring up your comp ratio. Since you already have performance heads I think the pistons would be the cheaper way of getting higher compression.
 

66P51GT

New Member
Nov 7, 2003
721
1
0
Cerritos, CA
Nov 12, 2004
#7
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #7
I ended up milling .015 off the heads and .015 off the deck height to get my compression corrected. This is with original 60cc chambers and flat tops with 4cc valve reliefs. Static compression is estimated at 9.7:1.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Nov 13, 2004
#8
  • Nov 13, 2004
  • #8
Just buying flat top pistons isn't going to guarantee your ratio will go up. Not all small block flat tops are the same. They've have very different compression heights. A .020 difference in this can make a point diference in the ratio on a 289. Mill your heads and or block, that'll be the easiest way to up the ratio. Do not mill the intake until you have done the final assembly and after you have verified that the intake needs to be milled. Sometimes they do after head/block milling, sometimes they don't.
 

Route666

Active Member
Aug 16, 2003
1,652
6
39
Brisbane, Australia
Nov 13, 2004
#9
  • Nov 13, 2004
  • #9
monkeyman, http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0311_phr_power_squeeze/ is a good read on compression ratio, how cams effect it (even has some numerical info), quench/squish, and some other efficiency methods.

I'm with D.Hearne in that if you're not rebuilding your shortblock, mill the head and/or block deck. Also, I agree with using thinner gaskets.
 

jeffnoel

Founding Member
Aug 31, 2002
1,638
5
37
Clovis, CA
Nov 13, 2004
#10
  • Nov 13, 2004
  • #10
monkeyman08880, what year is the 289? From the info I have CR ranged from 9.0 to 11.5 on the 289s from 1963-67. Also was it a 2V or 4V motor stock. The original heads most likely had 54.5cc chambers. Below is a good chart for figuring CRs when changing combustion chamber volume.

http://www.mustangii.net/headswapcompression.asp
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Nov 13, 2004
#11
  • Nov 13, 2004
  • #11
He doesn't have the stock heads, not unless Edelbrock was making RPM heads back then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
First post 289 rebuild question!
  • Ddyer2868
  • Nov 24, 2025
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
3
Views
230
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Dec 5, 2025
rednotch
HP woes with Sniper Sytem
  • Stang_1973
  • Mar 10, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
16
Views
804
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Mar 13, 2025
revhead347
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
674
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 28, 2026
Noobz347
SBF Head Flow Table - Work in Progress
  • Noobz347
  • Sep 29, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
17
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 30, 2025
Noobz347
S
Upgrade Advice on an 89 GT Convertible NJ
  • SteakDad
  • Apr 17, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
818
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 18, 2025
limp
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?